All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
All remaining issues were addressed and revised manuscript is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sonia Oliveira, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please address the remaining very minor issues pointed out by the reviewers and amend the manuscript accordingly.
English improved.
The structure and references of the manuscript were improved
The structure and references of the manuscript were improved
The manuscript is interesting. It's a good manuscript like a mini-review.
Could you change the title?
Efficacy of Tanshinone IIA in Rat Models with Myocardial Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury: A Systematic Mini-review and Meta-Analysis
None
Grammar has significantly improved! No Comment
Concerns on bias were partly addressed with the addition of articles in English into the analysis. Geographical location bias was also noted as a limitation of the study.
Authors noted per my previous recommendation that the method used to cause ischemia and reperfusion is used in a specific geographical region only if this was a reason behind the perceived bias. Authors must provide evidence that this is indeed the case to support this statement.
No Comment
Please address concerns of both reviewers and amend manuscript accordingly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
The manuscript is interesting. However, the manuscript could be enriched with the following corrections:
1) English is poor.
2( Abstract, could be rewritten; For example:
Myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury (MIRI) is severe damage to the ischemic myocardium when blood flow is restored, and it is a major complication of reperfusion therapy for myocardial infarction. It is noteworthy that some drugs such as……… have been used to reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury. Recently, Tanshinone IIA has been used to MIRI control…
3) .In the paragraph following (It is not understood, is it an experimental or revision study?.
Assessment of tanshinone IIA treatment eûcacy based on superoxide dismutase (SOD), methane dicarboxylic aldehyde (MDA), and myocardial infarction area results; and subgroup analysis using ischemia duration, reperfusion duration, dosage, and route.
Could it be the following way?....A study indicate that .Assessment of tanshinone IIA treatment eûcacy based on superoxide dismutase (SOD),.........
Experimental.
Why only 11 manuscrits?
Authors should conduct a thorough search for data supporting the manuscript. For example:
1) Zhu, P. C., Shen, J., Qian, R. Y., Xu, J., Liu, C., Hu, W. M., ... & Lv, L. C. (2023). Effect of tanshinone IIA for myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury in animal model: preclinical evidence and possible mechanisms. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 14, 1165212.
2) Mao, S., Vincent, M., Chen, M., Zhang, M., & Hinek, A. (2019). Exploration of multiple signaling pathways through which sodium tanshinone IIA sulfonate attenuates pathologic remodeling experimental infarction. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 10, 779.
3) Zhai, P., Chen, Q., Wang, X., Ouyang, X., Yang, M., Dong, Y., ... & Hu, D. (2024). The combination of Tanshinone IIA and Astragaloside IV attenuates myocardial ischemia–reperfusion injury by inhibiting the STING pathway. Chinese Medicine, 19(1), 34.
The experimental design is poor.
It's unconvincing. The manuscript is very poor.
The authors need to rewrite the manuscript.
The manuscript is very poor.
The authors need to rewrite the manuscript.
There are minor grammatical errors throughout the paper mostly wrong tenses. Typos and grammatical errors were noted on the pdf attached.
This article draws its findings from a meta-analysis conducted across various scholarly articles that investigated the impact of tanshinone IIA on Myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are sound and were used well to filter out irrelevant or duplicated articles. However, concerns arise regarding the diversity of experimental designs within the original studies, potentially influenced by factors such as breed disparities and other confounding variables.
Moreover, the scope of this meta-analysis is limited to a mere 11 articles, raising concerns the presence of selection bias. There is a possibility that these articles may not adequately represent the breadth of research in this field. Notably, a significant majority of the articles, nine out of the eleven, are in Chinese, indicating a potential language bias. It's essential to acknowledge this limitation to prevent unwarranted generalizations.
To enhance the robustness and inclusivity of future analyses, authors should cast a wider net, encompassing studies from a more diverse array of sources. This approach would help mitigate biases and ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. If not possible, I would prefer to see a justification for the bias eg "ligation of the left anterior descending coronary artery to cause ischemia and reperfusion is a method used in specific geographical/regional locations"
As stated above, there may be biases based on a low number of studies used in the meta analysis with some sub-groups only containing 1-3 articles. Would prefer to see same analysis based on more articles and articles from diverse sources.
Change "rats models" to "rat models" throughout the paper. This was a typo made multiple times.
Figure captions should expand to give better description of the work shown.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.